The strong sensitivity of the Earth’s radiation balance to variations in the lower stratospheric ozone—reported previously—is analysed here by the use of non-linear statistical methods. Our non-linear model of the land air temperature (T)—driven by the measured Arosa total ozone (TOZ)—explains 75% of total variability of Earth’s T variations during the period 1926–2011. We have analysed also the factors which could influence the TOZ variability and found that the strongest impact belongs to the multi-decadal variations of galactic cosmic rays. Constructing a statistical model of the ozone variability, we have been able to predict the tendency in the land air T evolution till the end of the current decade. Results show that Earth is facing a weak cooling of the surface T by 0.05–0.25 K (depending on the ozone model) until the end of the current solar cycle. A new mechanism for O3 influence on climate is proposed.

Fig. 3. Measured Arosa TOZ (dashed line with filled dots) and modelled TOZ by two non-linear models: (i) Equivalent effective stratospheric chlorine—EESC (thick curve); (ii) Galactic cosmic rays—GCR (thin continuous line with filled diamonds). On the right of the vertical bar are shown TOZ predictions till the end of the current decade calculated by TOZ autoregressive model (opened dots), by EESC model (dotted curve) and by GCR model (filled triangles).

.Fig. 4. Measured northern hemisphere land air temperature record (dashed line with filled dots) compared with modelled one’s by two non-linear models: EESC model (thick continuous line) and GCR model (thin continuous line with filed diamonds). On the right of the vertical bar are given land T predictions till the end of the current solar cycle calculated by: autoregressive model (dashed line with opened dots), EESC model (thick dotted line), GCR model (filled triangles).

.

.

I need to read some blurb on copyright before I add any further text from the paper or full size plots.

[update by co-mod, as far as I can tell the author is Dr. Nataliya Andreeva Kilifarska who has a page at Geophysical Institute, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. She has an interesting looking history starting out as a meteorologist. The whole department might be worthy of a good look to see what they have been doing.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

” Our non-linear model of the land air temperature (T)—driven by the measured Arosa total ozone (TOZ)—explains 75% of total variability of Earth’s T variations during the period 1926–2011.”

Every time I see that a correlation “explains” something it is a clear warning signal that something is severely wrong.
A correlation between two variables A and B never shows that A is causing B or B is causing A when dealing with complex systems.
I will wait with further judgement until the “futher info” is supplied and hopte it will be good.

The ozone response to solar variability has interested me for some time because in order to get the observed shifting of the jets and climate zones we need to reverse the sign of the solar effect on temperatures in the stratosphere and mesosphere so as to produce cooling of those layers when the sun is active and warming when it is inactive.

In contrast the established view is that a more active sun warms the entire atmospheric column.

The cool thing about solar cycles is there’s nothing on or about the earth that can possibly influence them. It was thought they didn’t influence the earth either but that’s not writ in granite. Or even soapstone. That’s etch-a-sketch territory subject to change at any moment.

So shouldn’t those who don’t think trace gases can do anything at all significant wrt to climate change be literally shouting from rooftops that an even tracer trace gas like ozone is even more irrelevant?

Certainly bears out my hunch that in the stratosphere (1/10 sea level pressure atmosphere – 1/1000 atm.) and mesosphere (1/1000 atm. – 1/100,000 atm.) we do see the greenhouse gas effect actually coming into play, forming that strange “W” in the earth’s temperature profile, as at these rarefied levels the energetic-ionic ghg effect can outweigh the primary pressure-led earth-warming effect that exists up to the tropopause, that Nikolov and Zeller are nailing.

Once again we must remember Ned’s warning that ‘temperature’ is measured differently in the rarified sections of the atmosphere. Up there we are talking about the temperature of individual molecules. In the troposphere we measure the bulk air – including the gaps between molecules.

So the top end of the on-its-side ‘W’ is exaggerated in terms of its ability to heat anything.

ozone explains 75% or so of the variability
cosmic rays explain 75% or so of the variability
cloud cover causes 75% or so of the varaibility
sun spots explain 75% or so of the variability
TSI explains 75% or so of the variability
spontaneous human combustion explains 75% or so of the variability
instrumentation errors explain 75% or so of the variability

How about ALL of these factors are inextricably intertwined in a manner that we clearly don’t have a clue about, and trying to pin down ONE effect based on ONE factor is ludicrous.

(I will allow that spontaneous human combustion may account for less that 75%, but this is off set by alarmists running in circles screaming that if one more single molecule of CO2 gets into the atmosphere, their hair will catch on fire.)

I have be very very sneaky to troll here. The reward is just too good not to try. Maybe I’m odd but to me there’s nothing quite as entertaining as getting a science crank to rant. The only way to improve on it is to mix some religion in with it. Some really good specious arguments can be found in scientific creationism. But I wore that one out in years past.

Actually temperature in the 21st century is pretty much the same in the high atmosphere as the low. You measure with non-contact (infrared) thermometers which are almost to the point where you get a free one with any $10 purchase in Walmart’s gardening department. These instruments will read the temperature of warm rarefied gases just fine.

[Reply] Perhaps the title would be clearer as “the way in which the Sun may be controlling Earth’s temperature”.

This seems to imply its possible the sun isn’t controlling the earth’s temperature. We already know the earth would be as cold as the object formerly known as the ninth planet without the sun. This is just one of possibly any number of more subtle influences than just brute force delivery of approximately 1366W/m2 of energy in a continuous 5000K blackbody spectrum. This is what controls the earth’s temperature. The rest is minor details.

[Reply] Ok, lets get more specific:“the way in which variability of the Sun may be controlling Earth’s surface temperature variability”

Hans;
Since there is no way O3 can control the sun or GCRs, nor is any plausible 4th variable which affects them in parallel on offer, it’s a not-unreasonable first presumption that the sun is interfering with GCR incidence and the latter with O3. The next step, to T, is not quite as clear-cut. But it would be fascinating to read about any postulated mechanism whereby surface T drove stratospheric O3.

To quote WE quoting Homer Simpson: “Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true!”

Well I pretty much took it as read that everyone would accept that the energy in the climate system is supplied by the sun in the first instance.

The proposition I was dealing with in my article was that solar variability allegedly had too small an effect on climate to produce the observed late 20th century warming.

So, I proposed a way that solar variations could control the system temperature whilst still producing climate changes despite very small changes in TSI.

Maybe the title could be different to make that clearer but I don’t see how that justifies Dave Springer’s attitude.

Why the hostility expressed by the terms ‘science crank’ and ‘hiding contempt’ ?

I have had many previous exchanges with DS that were perfectly civilised and many of our views are the same as I recall.

Apart from all that, more recent data is supporting just what I put forward in my article and the relevance to this thread is that Kilifarska and others including Joanna Haigh are looking into the same factors as those which I synthesised into an overview which is consistent with observations.

I had a flick through the paper. On the one hand they do seem to have found excellent correlations both between GCR’s and Ozone, and O3 and land temperatures, but as I see it the paper is weaker on the all important causation part.

Use of exclamation marks (which may be valid in Bulgarian papers – who am I to know), seem out of place here and statements like the below, don’t fill me with confidence:
“The IPCC states that the global warming of the planet is initiated by the increased concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (methane CH4, nitrous oxide N2O, halocarbons, sulphur hexafluoride SF6, etc.). Actually, the water vapour inserts the highest greenhouse warming of the earth surface!”

(Note exclamation !!!!!!)

But having said that, the correlations look good, so it’s worth the experts here looking into it further.

As someone who used to tinker with Tesla coils in his youth, I know that high voltage electrical discharges generate lots of ozone – just thinking about that dry-acrid smell takes me back to my youth… :-)

Stephen Wilde;
It doesn’t have to be GCRs affecting O3. It is more likely to be UV variations perhaps supplemented by various charged particles capable of destroying O3.>>>

I’d have to go hunting for references but my recollection is that sun spots are cooler than the average temperature of the sun, but that the edges of the sunspots are much hotter, and emitt considerably more UV than the rest of the surface. Since UV is the predominant factor in both generation and depletion of ozone (depending on exact frequency and other factors) sunspot fluctuations should logically drive ozone fluctuations. Ozone in turn is an absorber at various frequencies, and so logically should drive changes in temperature beyond the change in total TSI directly associated with sun spot fluctuations.

So, my recollection may well be faulty, but for sake of argument, let’s suppose the above is correct. A researcher looking at ozone levels could very well find a correlation between ozone and temperature. A different researcher might find a correlation between sun spots and temperature. Which one is correct?

They both would be. The sun spots drive the ozone which drives the temperature. I doubt though that it is that simple, my expectation is that there are additional factors all tangled up in one another. Which is why I resist the notion that any given single factor is “the” factor which drives temperature.

On the other hand….

I think it worth noting that there is very little fluctuation in ozone levels above the tropics, while fluctuations in high latitudes are massive by comparison. If fluctuations in ozone levels are more pronounced at higher latitudes (never mind the cause) and are a significant GHG, this would also correlate to movement of the temperate zones either poleward or toward the equator as you so frequently point out seems to be a major factor.

So, do sun spots drive the temperature? Or ozone? or fluctuations in the latitude of the temperate zones? Or, do sun spots drive ozone which drives latitude of the temperate zones which drives temperature?

UV from the sun and ONLY UV from the sun creates ozone in the stratosphere. I read diminishing quantities are created in the troposphere. Wikipedia tells me that the half life of ozone is 30 minutes. This means that when the sun is shining on the North Pole the South Pole is dark and you get a hole in the ozone UNLESS WINDS MAKE UP THE SHORT FALL. And vice versa when the sun is over the South Pole ozone levels will drop at the North Pole as the panic reports recently noted.
It follows that levels of ozone will follow levels of UV output from the sun very rapidly. There are reports that UV from the sun was reduced during the 23/24 minimum. Ozone holes/reductions are natural cyclical events controlled exclusively by the sun.
Let’s hear about actual repeatable measurements. Not waffle about ‘model’ predictions.

“There are papers out there saying that:
ozone explains 75% or so of the variability
cosmic rays explain 75% or so of the variability
cloud cover causes 75% or so of the varaibility
sun spots explain 75% or so of the variability
TSI explains 75% or so of the variability
spontaneous human combustion explains 75% or so of the variability
instrumentation errors explain 75% or so of the variability

How about ALL of these factors are inextricably intertwined in a manner that we clearly don’t have a clue about, and trying to pin down ONE effect based on ONE factor is ludicrous.”

I tend to agree with you. Probably the precautionary principle requires that you sum up a combined effect of more than 100% to feel sure that the “explanations” are correct?

Lunar dynamics is a prime factor in climate variation according to Piers Corbyn and I agree with him. It would be cheap for UK and the rest of the world the replace IPCC with Corbyn´s Weather Action and the result would be useful for planners, too.

I find that I don’t really follow your material as closely as perhaps I should because the comments attached to your graphs are rather cryptic and tend to assume that the reader knows how to interpret the data in your graphs.

Could you consider a more ‘lay person friendly’ narrative to accompany your charts ?

[[Duplicate post, first one pulled]
Hi Steven
If you read from the Svensmark’s abstract (bottom of the web page) written few years ago, about the previous Forbush decrease and then look at the bottom right smaller graph with the neutron count, you can see that the values in the graph from the last month are very close to what Svensmark found before.
Effect from Forbush lasts only few days and wouldn’t have much effect. I still have strong doubts about the temperature side of it, since clouds during day reduce insulation but at the night time also reduce cooling the net result on ‘24h day’ temperature I suspect could be minimal. Also it is worth noting that cloudiness is 5-10% higher at night than during the day time.

Hi Steven
If you read from the Svensmark’s abstract written few years ago, about the previous Forbush decrease and then look at the bottom right smaller graph with the neutron count, you can see that the values in the graph from last month are very close to what Svensmark found before.
Effect from Forbush lasts only few days and wouldn’t have much effect. I still have strong doubts about the temperature side of it, since clouds during day reduce insulation and at the night time reduce cooling, I suspect the net result on ‘24h day’ temperature could be minimal. Also it is worth noting that cloudiness is 5-10% higher at night than during the day time.